ORDER:

This revision, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed challenging the order, dated 06.12.2018, passed in E.P.No.6 of 2017 in O.S.No.22 of 2012 on the file of the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur, filed under Order XXI Rules 22 & 34 CPC, by the decree holder to issue Rule 22 notice to the judgment debtor No.1, and thereafter, notice under Rule 34 along with copy of draft sale deed to file objections, if any.

2. Heard Sri Medapati Santosh Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/respondent/defendant and Sri Rama Murthy P.V.S.A., learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner/

plaintiff.

3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:

(a) The decree holder (DHr) filed the suit against the judgment debtors (JDrs) for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by the JDr No.1 in his favour. The suit was decreed. As per the terms of the decree, the DHr was directed to deposit the amount of balance sale consideration into Court and the JDr No.1 is directed to receive the same and execute the sale deed in his favour. However, the JDr No.1 did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The DHr issued notice, dated 26.11.2015, to JDrs 1 & 2 to receive the balance amount and register the sale deed as per the decree. The DHr deposited the balance consideration and interest thereon, vide challan No.1538, dated 11.02.2015, as per the terms of the decree. But, the JDr No.1 did not come forward to execute the registered sale deed. Hence, the petition was filed by the DHr seeking execution of the decree, as per the terms of the agreement, and to register the sale deed in his favour. Thereafter, the decree was transferred for execution from VII Additional District Judge’s Court, Eluru to the Court of X Additional District Judge, Narsapur.

(b) The JDr No.1 filed counter denying the averments in the execution petition and contending that the decree passed by VII Additional District Judge, Eluru, in O.S.No.22 of 2012 is not an executable decree. The JDr No.1 sold the land in an extent of Ac.0.37 cents which is shown in item Nos.1 to 3 of EP schedule property to Nelapudi Srilakshmi under registered sale deed, dated 24.01.2009, for a valid consideration and the said Srilakshmi is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The JDr No.1 sold away in an extent of Ac.1.03 cents shown in item Nos. 4 to 8 of the EP schedule to Medimudi Padmavathi under registered sale deed, dated 09.07.2009, for valid consideration and delivered possession and thereby the purchaser is in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner. Thus, the purchasers of the EP schedule property, viz., Medimudi Padmavathi and Nelapudi Srilakshmi are necessary and proper parties to the execution petition proceedings. The execution petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Even prior to filing of O.S.No.22 of 2012, the JDr No.1 sold away the EP schedule properties. Further, since the DHr., having knowledge of those transactions, purposefully did not add the said bona fide purchasers as parties to the suit though they are necessary arties, the decree is un-executable. The petition is liable to be dismissed.

(c) During the course of inquiry in the execution petition, no oral and documentary evidence was adduced. The JDr No.1 was examined as RW1 and exhibit R1 is marked on his behalf.

4. On merits and on hearing the parties, the execution Court held as hereunder:

“In the result, the objections raised by the judgment debtor No.1 at Rule 22 CPC stage as regards to his contention that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained and it is overruled and the other objections of un-executability of the decree can be enquired into at Rule 34 CPC stage. Thus, the decree holder is having right to proceed with further steps by overruling the objections of the judgment debtor No.1 at this stage. Issue Rule 34 CPC notice along with copy of the draft sale deed to judgment Debtor No.1 by 21-

12-2018.”

5. Aggrieved